War with Iran.

[Big Mac 19]

It takes out your rival producers.

Anything you destroy must be rebuilt.

Which increases world demand for goods which you can produce.

Potentially, it unlocks the markets of the country you attack also.

Taking 'Hostile Takeover' to a new level eh?

[maddogx 13]

For those of you who haven't seen it yet: Ahmadinejad expects U.S. attack within three months (reuters.com)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

For those of you who haven't seen it yet: Ahmadinejad expects U.S. attack within three months (reuters.com)

Mitsui Says Oil Tanker Possibly Attacked Near Hormuz

Somalians, right? Right.

[Inkompetent 0]

Japan had oil?

Only until USA stopped trading oil to Japan! :D

No they attacked Pearl Harbor...

And why did they attack Pearl Harbour? Because USA stopped trading oil, started with the aid packages to UK (which Japan was at war with), and froze all Japanese assets in USA maybe? USA practically started the war in the pacific on their own. Just without an official war declaration ;)

[VariousArtist 19]

Japan had oil?

Yes, fish oil from illegal whaling! ;)

[Pathy 0]

War is inevitable....

*'Hellmarch' plays*

Edited July 31, 2010 by Pathy

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

No no no, you've got it all wrong. That would have been true 10-15 years ago. Now, it's Hell March 3. For comparison...

Tb-gI_pFog0

9WqwFhX6Cqg

6nFKPVfDrgU

And remember brothers, "Kane Lives!".

But the GDI will just kill him, again. Or Einstein will assassinate him instead of Hitler this time. Or something.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Is the American Tea Party turning against Israel and War with Iran?

It would seem so from recent articles from the American right like this one in American Conservative magazine.

No Blank Checks for the GOP — or Likud

Posted on August 2nd, 2010 by Patrick J. Buchanan

High among the blunders of history was the “blank cheque†Kaiser Wilhelm gave Vienna, after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, to deal with the Serbs as they saw fit.

Five weeks later, Vienna cashed the check and declared war, after Belgrade refused to submit to all 10 demands of an ultimatum. Russia mobilized; Germany and France followed. And war came, the bloodiest in all of European history with 9 million soldiers in their graves.

Since June 1914, a “blank check†given by one nation to another for war has been regarded as strategic folly.

Thus it is startling to learn 47 House Republicans just signed on to H.R. 1553 declaring unequivocal “support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran … including the use of military force.â€

These Republicans have just given Tel Aviv a blank check for a pre-emptive war that Israel, unless it uses its nuclear weapons, can start but not finish. Fighting and finishing that war would fall to the armed forces of the United States.

Who do these Republicans represent?

The Pentagon has made clear that with two wars of nearly a decade’s duration bleeding us, we do not want a third war with Iran. For while easy to predict how such a war begins, with air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, no one can know how it ends.

Indeed, how would Israel reach its targets in Iran?

Turkey would not allow Israeli over-flights. The route over Jordan and Iraq would require U.S. military complicity, for we control Iraqi air space. Would Riyadh permit Israel to use its airspace to attack Iran, knowing Tehran could create havoc in the Gulf states and oil patch of northeastern Arabia?

The Israeli air force could destroy the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, the heavy water reactor at Arak and uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. But Israel cannot follow up and destroy all the dispersed nuclear facilities and missile sites of Iran. And no one knows what would follow.

How would Iran retaliate? Missile strikes on Tel Aviv? A missile barrage form Hezbollah igniting another Israeli-Lebanon war? How long could the United States stand by and watch Israel bombarded?

Indeed, the principal purpose and result of an Israeli pre-emptive war on Iran, bringing retaliation on Israel, would be to drag America in to fight and finish a war Israel had begun...

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/08/02/no-blank-checks-for-the-gop-or-likud/

As always follow the link to read the original article and full text

This comes as Likud is seen as driving a deeper wedge between Israel and its only Muslim NATO ally Turkey:

Barak remarks signal intelligence skirmishes with Israel

Security experts have warned that remarks by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak accusing Turkey’s intelligence chief of being a supporter of Iran is an indication of new intelligence skirmishes on the horizon between Turkey and Israel.

They also pointed out that the statements are not only discourteous but also an effort to delegitimize the Turkish government.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, according to Israeli Army radio, in a meeting of his Labor Party expressed concerns over the appointment of Hakan Fidan as the chief of the National Intelligence Organization (MÄ°T).

“Turkey is a friendly country, a strategic ally, but the nomination in recent weeks of a new chief of the Turkish secret service who is a supporter of Iran worries us,†he was quoted as saying.

Barak added that the appointment could result in “the Iranians having access to secret information,†in a recording of his remarks broadcast by military radio. Right after the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident on May 31, which resulted in the killing of eight Turks and one American by Israeli soldiers, critical articles about Fidan appeared.

The Israeli authorities claimed that the main reason for the deathly interception was Israel’s lack of intelligence on the passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara. The Israeli authorities never said this openly but hinted that their lack of intelligence was an outcome of the non-cooperative attitude of the Turkish side...

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-217962-102-barak-remarks-signal-intelligence-skirmishes-with-israel.html

As always follow the link to read the original article and full text

Along with polls showing a decline in support from the Jewish community outside Israel for Likud policies especially with the current proposal to remove citizenship from Israeli's who converted to Judaism or who are married to a person of Jewish faith.

Along with the recent depreciation of Israels relations with its allies in the rest of the world from Ireland and the UK to Germany and Australia; it almost seems like Likud are out to make Israel in to a Pariah in order to terrify the Israeli electorate into voting for them, or be seen as a traitor.

I remember a similar sort of thing happened in the run up to the Iraq war, where the electorate's of the US and UK were made to feel threatened to rush them into precipitous actions.

And we all remember what that lead too...

Still No Link to 9/11.

Still No Link to Al Qaeda.

Still No WMD.

And Iraq is Still a total mess.

Is this whole thing down to Likud wanting to stay in power?

Israel more likely to strike Iran than U.S., analysts say

By: Sara A. Carter

National Security Correspondent

August 3, 2010

While the U.S. military has developed a first-strike plan to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, the political and security consequences of taking that step make it an unlikely option, analysts said.

But the wild card in the deck remains Israel, and there is a growing sense among experts that the Jewish state make act first, and explain later, if the threat of a nuclear strike from Tehran continues to grow...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Israel-more-like-to-strike-Iran-than-U_S__-analysts-say-1006710-99790639.html

As always follow the link to read the original article and full text

Perhaps now is a moment for the Israeli people to take a deep breath and consider things.

Regards walker

Edited August 3, 2010 by walker

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Still No WMD.

My apologies, but you are very mistaken there. There WERE Weapons of Mass Destruction inside Iraq. Too many people think that "WMD" automatically means "Nuke". It doesn't.

Iraq had 50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles.

Now, that missile exceeds the UN limit of a missile with a cluster payload by 30km therefor making it a "WMD" by UN standards.

Along with quite a bit of chemical warheads for said missiles and even more chemical artillery shells, so the media's repeated cries that "there were no WMD's in Iraq" is false.

I know a guy who went into Iraq with the first push in '03. His guys had to secure warehouses that were full of barrels/containers/whatever, and when somebody got a Geiger Counter up there, they found out the entire site was extremely radioactive. So radioactive that him and his guys had to be decontaminated afterwards. Hell, it could have even been material from the failed Nuke Reactor that the Israelis hit.

So perhaps now is the moment for you to take a step back, and confirm your facts before you state false ones.

Regards, Darkhorse.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Darkhorse 1-6

[Big Mac 19]

My apologies, but you are very mistaken there. There WERE Weapons of Mass Destruction inside Iraq. Too many people think that "WMD" automatically means "Nuke". It doesn't.

Iraq had 50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles.

Now, that missile exceeds the UN limit of a missile with a cluster payload by 30km therefor making it a "WMD" by UN standards.

Along with quite a bit of chemical warheads for said missiles and even more chemical artillery shells, so the media's repeated cries that "there were no WMD's in Iraq" is false.

I know a guy who went into Iraq with the first push in '03. His guys had to secure warehouses that were full of barrels/containers/whatever, and when somebody got a Geiger Counter up there, they found out the entire site was extremely radioactive. So radioactive that him and his guys had to be decontaminated afterwards. Hell, it could have even been material from the failed Nuke Reactor that the Israelis hit.

So perhaps now is the moment for you to take a step back, and confirm your facts before you state false ones.

Regards, Darkhorse.

But we went in there on the premise that they were in possession of a nuclear bomb or materials to make a nuclear bomb. That was proven to be false.

Radioactive material can mean a great many things such as what you just mentioned. Everyone knew they had tons of chemical weapons because we gave it to them during the Iran/Iraq war.

You were right about the media using the phrase WMD to mean a nuke, but WMDs were not why were there, it was a nuclear threat that was proven to be false. So in the end over 4,000 Americans lost their lives and over 30,000 maimed for a lie.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

You were right about the media using the phrase WMD to mean a nuke, but WMDs were not why were there, it was a nuclear threat that was proven to be false.

I didn't say that we were there because of WMDs, but IIRC we actually were. NK or Iran, those are/could be nuclear threats. Iraq, nope. The entire reason we went in was because of the "9/11" connection (which I agree didn't exist) and the "WMDs".

[Big Mac 19]

I didn't say that we were there because of WMDs, but IIRC we actually were. NK or Iran, those are/could be nuclear threats. Iraq, nope. The entire reason we went in was because of the "9/11" connection (which I agree didn't exist) and the "WMDs".

And the "WMDs" weren't there. If they were then I'd like to think that 7 years later we would have found at least one piece of proof that proves they were actually making a nuke and not just trying to scare their neighbors and missiles don't count as proof neither does barrels of radioactive materials. A lot of countries have missiles akin to the ones you mentioned and I'm more inclined to believe that those barrels of radioactive material our friend found were what was left the reactor that the israelis blew all to hell and back. I hate to say it, but our previous president and vice president wasted lives of over 4,000 servicemen on a wild goose chase. Edited August 3, 2010 by Big Mac

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

We didn't go in after nukes...

I firmly believe that there is a reason we went into Iraq, other than the 9/11 thing, and to take down their chemical weapons. The Iraqi people themselves are happier without Saddam, and plenty of them feel that once we are gone, things will get worse. Although the power, water, phone services, etc. could and will (hopefully) be improved, life in Iraq now is better than it was 10-15 years ago.

My personal opinion is that instead of pulling out of Iraq now, we should wait until 2015. Gradually draw down until then, but we need to make sure that once we leave, it doesn't open the way for a wannabe Saddam. Leaving now is going to leave Iraq unstable. If that happens, Iran may attempt to move on Iraq, through proxies most likely, and that may cause war with Iran. Of course, it's possible that that is what the government wants. You can't be sure these days.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Darkhorse 1-6

[walker 0]

Hi Darkhorse 1-6

Keep up mate...

We went in to Regime change at least that was the Bush Administration's story when we found:

Still No Link to 9/11.

Still No Link to Al Qaeda.

Still No WMD.

And after the Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq found the three initial reason for invading Iraq were a crock of hooey.

As the general conclusions of the senate investigation stated:

...Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence...

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2b.pdf

As always follow the link to the original article and text

The Radioactive material found in Iraq was a small amount of the stuff Sadam needed to create the fuel for a reactor. It was just 550 metric tons of yellowcake, we new all about it. It was never refined to any serious level. It was also stored under the control of the IAEA for most of its time in Iraq.

It was way below the purity you need to run a reactor never mind make a bomb from and there was not enough of it to refine to make a bomb, that was the whole reason for the made up Yelowcake story that resulted in the Plamegate affair. So that the bush administration could say there was credible source of enough Yelowcake to make a bomb, otherwise the sums would not add up.

You need ~4000 tons of yellowcake to make a nuke; depending on the purity levels your refining process can achieve, the more low tech your refining process is the more yellowcake you need. If you want to know more go here.

http://chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-06.htm

...Iraqi president Saddam Hussein purchased the yellowcake in the early 1980s from Niger. Following the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the IAEA discovered and safeguarded the material at Tuwaitha until 1998, when its inspectors were ousted from Iraq. International inspectors were not invited back into the country until 2002, on the brink of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. An IAEA report prior to the 2003 war concluded that all declared uranium compounds in Iraq were untouched during the suspension on inspections...

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_09/IraqUranium

As always follow the link to the original article and text

So not only did Iraq not have the WMD but the Bush administration made up stories that Iraq had WMD. This was done by the Office of Special Plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

Kind Regards walker

[Big Mac 19]

We didn't go in after nukes...

Yes we did.

I firmly believe that there is a reason we went into Iraq, other than the 9/11 thing, and to take down their chemical weapons.

What you firmly believe and what is actually reality are two different things. The reason we went in was because we thought Iraq was developing a nuclear weapon.

The Iraqi people themselves are happier without Saddam, and plenty of them feel that once we are gone, things will get worse. Although the power, water, phone services, etc. could and will (hopefully) be improved, life in Iraq now is better than it was 10-15 years ago.

That may very well be true, but I much rather we spend money improving our own country before we spend it over there, besides if you asked an your average American if he'd like his tax dollar going to build a new highway in Iraq or going to improve his own highway, he'd choose his own first.

My personal opinion is that instead of pulling out of Iraq now, we should wait until 2015. Gradually draw down until then, but we need to make sure that once we leave, it doesn't open the way for a wannabe Saddam. Leaving now is going to leave Iraq unstable. If that happens, Iran may attempt to move on Iraq, through proxies most likely, and that may cause war with Iran. Of course, it's possible that that is what the government wants. You can't be sure these days.

Why should we risk more lives? It's been 7 years and the country is finally stable. If some bozo wants to make himself the next saddam then that's not our problem, it was bound to happen. If Iran decides to move again Iraq after we leave we have staging areas close enough to stage from that we don't need to be in iraq. The Iraqis want us to leave and it's their home, not ours.

[Baff1 0]

Lol I remember Tony Blair saying how we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam had nukes.

....and the whole country just laughing at him.

Hahaha.

He changed his story so many times trying to get one that would stick. It took him almost a year to come up with something that people wouldn't just out right laugh in his face for.

P.S. without 9/11 there would have been no Iraq invasion.

The American people all associated Saddam with 9/11. The administration made every effort to link the two and the public were looking for payback.

Sure, he was a scapegoat and not the real perpetrator...but events like that require revenge and when the blood is hot, no one is too fussy who it is on.

If you think differently you have a rose tinted view of it. That's all.

Try explaining to an American at the time that Saddam had nothing to do with it and you would be ridiculed for your stupidity and reviled for your anti-americanism.

[walker 0]

Hi all

One has to of course remember that the cost was the lives of Saddam and his sons.

179 British armed forces.

Over 4000 US armed forces.

And around 100,000 and climbing, Iraqi Soldiers, Policemen, civilians's men, women, children and babies.

walker

[Big Mac 19]

Try explaining to an American at the time that Saddam had nothing to do with it and you would be ridiculed for your stupidity and reviled for your anti-americanism.

That sadly was true. The country was so enthralled with blood rage at the time that the truth didn't matter as long as someone paid for what happened on 9/11.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Ah! I believe it is beginning...

Lebanese troops, Israeli soldier killed in border clash

ALI DIA

August 4, 2010 - 3:44AM

Lebanese and Israeli troops traded fire Tuesday along their tense border in the worst clash since a 2006 war, with two Lebanese soldiers, a journalist and a senior Israeli officer killed.

Each side blamed the other for causing the fight, which Lebanon said left 15 people wounded, with the Lebanese army acknowledging that it shot first.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is visiting Japan, expressed concern over the clashes and called "for maximum restraint," his spokesman said...

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/lebanese-troops-israeli-soldier-killed-in-border-clash-20100804-115o3.html

As always, Follow the link for the full story and original text

There was some talk that a third party country would be used to pretext the war.

Wonder if this will be a slow burn or a sudden on rush war.

Will it be known as the "War of the uprooted shrubery?"

Apparently the Israeli Army invaded Lebanon in order to pull up some trees.

Maybe UN should give them an ASBO.

Sadly Walker

Edited August 3, 2010 by walker

[paplate 10]

Hi all

Ah! I believe it is beginning...

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/lebanese-troops-israeli-soldier-killed-in-border-clash-20100804-115o3.html

As always, Follow the link for the full story and original text

There was some talk that a third party country would be used to pretext the war.

Wonder if this will be a slow burn or a sudden on rush war.

Sadly Walker

I'd say that nothing BIG would happen until around late next year.

[walker 0]

I'd say that nothing BIG would happen until around late next year.

Hi Paplate

"Pretext" all is "Pretext" Paplate.

So your betting on slow burn.

It all depends on whether Hezbollah is keeping its powder dry.

A bit of symbolic tree planting next I think.

Lebanon invites Israel to join with it to plant some trees in remembrance of the dead soldiers, do you think Israel will come?

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 3, 2010 by walker

[Inkompetent 0]

Hi all

Ah! I believe it is beginning...

As far as I heard on the radio it was Israeli soldiers about to cut down a tree standing on the border, that they considered blocking their line of sight towards Lebanon.

The Lebanese soldiers considered it trespassing and shot at the soldiers, being the start of the firefight.

Seems more like a small incident to me, that won't cause any kind of escalation in itself. Lebanon got to show it doesn't tolerate Israel on/past its border, and Israel got to successfully shoot back.

Will of course be something for the politicians to yell about and people to be angry about, but it'll take more than that to cause something big in such a skirmish-familiar region.

[walker 0]

Hi Inkompetent

Actually the report linked above says the UN told Israel to leave Lebanon.

The Israeli soldiers ignored the UN then.

The Lebanese soldiers asked Beirut what to do and they were told to fire to chase Israel off Lebanese land.

Israel returned fire and various people then got shot.

And Israel recovered its dead and dying back to Israel.

Now it appears to be escalating

3 dead, 4 injured in Israeli shelling of Lebanese post

Tuesday, 03 August 2010 23:00 | Written by J D Team

Beirut, August 3 (Petra) -- Three Lebanese soldiers were killed and four others injured when the Israeli army shelled a military post in a Southern Lebanon village, a Lebanese security source said.

The sources added that Al Akhbar Daily correspondent in the area was seriously injured in the shelling which occurred in the southern village of Adaisseh...

http://www.jordandirections.com/27/3-dead-4-injured-in-israeli-shelling-of-lebanese-post-3810

As always follow the link to the original article and text

The UN is trying hard to keep a lid on it but as Israel refused to take notice of the UN when it told the Israeli soldiers to leave, it will be near impossible for the UN to appear to be even handed as the Lebanese will see the UN as unable to keep a muzzle on Israel.

Regards walker

Edit There is picture that was on CNN it shows the Israeli's were using a crane to place a soldier over the border fence and he was either uprooting trees or as the Lebanese Army now says planting something (mine/listening device) on the Lebanese side of the border.

Tensions rise as deadly border clash erupts between Israel, Lebanon

By the CNN Wire Staff

August 3, 2010 -- Updated 2104 GMT (0504 HKT)

Beirut, Lebanon (CNN) -- A clash between Lebanon and Israel along their volatile shared border Tuesday left an Israeli officer and several Lebanese soldiers dead while escalating fears of renewed violence between the nations.

Lt. Col. Dov Harari, a battalion commander, was killed in the fighting, according to an Israel Defense Forces statement. Another Israeli soldier was seriously wounded, it said.

A Lebanese army spokesman said at least two Lebanese soldiers were killed and several others were wounded.

Lebanon's official National News Agency reported that journalist Assaf Abu Rahal also was killed in the exchange of fire between Lebanese and Israeli soldiers.

Two separate narratives emerged about the incident...

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/03/lebanon.israel.hostilities/?hpt=Sbin#fbid=7YvQSF9K-Oh

As always follow the link for the original story and text.

Regards walker

Edited August 3, 2010 by walker

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Walker, if you go back to the last page, you will find that you are wrong. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. We FOUND WMDs inside Iraq.

I'm not sure how hard this is for you to understand. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" does not mean nuclear weapons".

[walker 0]

Walker, if you go back to the last page, you will find that you are wrong. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. We FOUND WMDs inside Iraq.

I'm not sure how hard this is for you to understand. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" does not mean nuclear weapons".

Hi Darkhorse 1-6

Please provide a link to this US government report saying WMD was found in Iraq after Gulf War II.

I do find it very odd that the Bush Administration, Beck, Rush and the GOP failed to spot this Government report you are talking about but I can give you their email addresses so you can inform them of the news and they can shout it out over the airwaves.

Expectantly awaiting your reply walker

Edited August 4, 2010 by walker